Clark: An interesting shift beginning within the GOP

Published: Saturday, March 30, 2013 at 06:04 PM.

U.S. Sen. Rand Paul has made some interesting speeches lately. Clearly, he’s attempting to set himself up for a run of some kind in the future.

However, on closer inspection his comments are worth noting.

First, Paul performed a 13-hour filibuster, in which he railed against the executive power of drone attacks. A few weeks later, the junior Republican senator from Kentucky talked about immigration where he said, “I think the conversation needs to start by acknowledging we aren’t going to deport 12 million illegal immigrants. If you wish to work, if you wish to live and work in America, then we will find a place for you.”

Let’s examine the first statement. As for the “executive power” to prepare, plan and execute drone attacks, I would say this is an extremely gray area. The irony here is the roots of this issue can be traced directly Rand’s own party and the Patriot Act. This unprecedented legislation gave our federal government the ability to exercise significant powers over our citizens by expanding the government’s authority to wiretap and lowering standards of probable cause and allowing significantly more search warrants and subpoenas.

Executive Order 13223 further muddies the water by allowing the executive branch to claim executive privilege over documents concerning their administration. President George W. Bush also changed the landscape by setting the stage for America to circumvent international organizations and ignore international treaties. This allows the U.S. to act in its own self-interest and make war if the president thinks an attack is imminent.

Right or wrong, these decisions have put an enormous amount of control in the president’s lap and, when combined with the exploding technology of drones, has set the stage for what it taking place today.

Personally, I had major issues with the PATRIOT Act and EO13223 from the get-go. It straight-up tramples our civil rights while hiding behind the American flag. The ironic part is that it is a bill written, produced and pushed through by Rand’s own party’s leadership.

U.S. Sen. Rand Paul has made some interesting speeches lately. Clearly, he’s attempting to set himself up for a run of some kind in the future.

However, on closer inspection his comments are worth noting.

First, Paul performed a 13-hour filibuster, in which he railed against the executive power of drone attacks. A few weeks later, the junior Republican senator from Kentucky talked about immigration where he said, “I think the conversation needs to start by acknowledging we aren’t going to deport 12 million illegal immigrants. If you wish to work, if you wish to live and work in America, then we will find a place for you.”

Let’s examine the first statement. As for the “executive power” to prepare, plan and execute drone attacks, I would say this is an extremely gray area. The irony here is the roots of this issue can be traced directly Rand’s own party and the Patriot Act. This unprecedented legislation gave our federal government the ability to exercise significant powers over our citizens by expanding the government’s authority to wiretap and lowering standards of probable cause and allowing significantly more search warrants and subpoenas.

Executive Order 13223 further muddies the water by allowing the executive branch to claim executive privilege over documents concerning their administration. President George W. Bush also changed the landscape by setting the stage for America to circumvent international organizations and ignore international treaties. This allows the U.S. to act in its own self-interest and make war if the president thinks an attack is imminent.

Right or wrong, these decisions have put an enormous amount of control in the president’s lap and, when combined with the exploding technology of drones, has set the stage for what it taking place today.

Personally, I had major issues with the PATRIOT Act and EO13223 from the get-go. It straight-up tramples our civil rights while hiding behind the American flag. The ironic part is that it is a bill written, produced and pushed through by Rand’s own party’s leadership.

To bring up these inconsistencies now just reeks of partisan politics, but the sentiment is as much needed now as it was when the bill passed the first time around. There is no question in my mind this is an area that needs to be addressed.

However, it’s Rand’s timing that I question. If President Bush were still aiming the drones, would we be having this conversation? I think not.

Paul’s statement of “No American should be killed by a drone on American soil without first being charged with a crime, without first being found guilty of a crime by a court. We are a nation of laws protected by the constitution where all citizens are presumed innocent until proven guilty.

The question of “How can you kill someone without going to a judge, or a jury?” would be comical if it didn’t contain some credibility. The fact is I question whether Paul’s comments were about President Obama or our citizens’ civil rights.

Paul kicked things up a notch a few weeks later when he said, “Immigration reform will not occur until conservative Republicans, like myself, become part of the solution. That’s why I am here today to begin that conversation and be part of the solution. I think the conversation needs to start by acknowledging we aren’t going to deport 12 million illegal immigrants. If you wish to work, if you wish to live and work in America, then we will find a place for you.”

Wait, what? You ARE NOT going to deport all the illegals? Interesting.

The so-called “Pathway to citizenship” has been the crux of the immigration argument from the beginning. Those on the right have clamored about deportation and so forth for so long it has completely stalled any attempt at true immigration reform.

The idea that you can deport all of the illegal immigrants is just stupid. How are you going to pay for something on this massive scale? Think of the sheer manpower required to gather up, detain and ship 12 million people out of the country. That’s a ton of employees needed and we haven’t even begun to talk about equipment (buses, trucks, etc.) and housing that would need to be built.

I happen to agree with Paul for the most part on his view of immigration. You have to start with the idea the people already in the U.S.must be given some sort of “amnesty.” Call it whatever you want but you have to start here.

Next, you can tackle border security. It is pointless to attempt to herd all the illegal immigrants while our borders are like sieves.

The irony to me is that while we focus attention on our borders in the south, the terrorists from 9/11 came through Canada. We can argue all day about the reasons behind our preoccupation with the Mexican border and true reasons behind our obsession/problem. In the end, I could care less if someone wants to come to Americato work in our produce fields but I am a bit concerned about those wanting to fly a plane into our buildings.

We have lost sight of what is truly important here: our security and freedom is what is important. I would much rather live in a country other people strive to come to than the alternative.

Paul’s remarks also carry extensive repercussions within the Republican Party.

His talk about drones flies in the face of the traditional “macho” image of the Old Guard Republicans, who have given at least the perception they were war-ready. Any talk of “rights” and limited “war powers” has, at least in the past, traditionally been linked to the Democrats.

As for immigration, even acknowledging that deporting all of the illegal immigrants is 180 degrees from the bulk of the Republican Party.

It’s interesting that one of the leading Libertarian-Tea Party voices has such differing opinions on these explosive issues than the core of his own party. I think it’s possible these may be more popular opinions amongst conservatives than the more traditional views held by Speaker Boehner and so of his cohorts.

Does this suggest a widening divide within the Republican or even bigger news of a shift in the party’s ideology? Or is this the rise of a true Libertarian Party? Who knows, but it should be interesting to see where conservatives fall on many of these tough issues in the near future.

Richard Clark is the desk chief of Halifax ENC; his column appears in this space every Sunday. You can reach him at 910-219-8452 or at Richard.Clark@jdnews.com. Follow him on Twitter at kpaws22.